We refer to the meeting held on Wednesday 26 September 2007 in relation to the above proposed pathway development, which extends from the Sheraton to the Federation Walk on The Spit.

As you know, Save Our Spit Alliance Inc (SOSA) have been actively engaged in ensuring the preservation and protection of The Spit for almost three years, and in particular, in the promotion and ultimate acceptance by the State Government of the GCCC Vision 2020 plan for certain limited development of specific state-owned lands south of SeaWorld Resort on the western side of The Spit. We are grateful for the opportunity to be consulted with respect to the 'Final Draft' of the Schematic Sketch Plan Report and thank you for including us in that process.

As indicated in that meeting, SOSA does not and will not support the schematic sketch plan mooted. We are therefore somewhat concerned that it is referred to as the final draft, as surely, consultation is expected to have some impact upon that document. We thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak at length during the meeting and to avoid any doubt about our position, we wish to reiterate the following critical points:

1. the proposal to bulldoze a pathway 6 metres wide through the sanddunes and bush is totally inappropriate and will be strenuously resisted by SOSA. There is a vast differential between the type and location of pathway required through urban areas such as Main Beach compared to the area immediately north of the Sheraton. In other words, this area is the natural transition area and should therefore, be preserved as natural, in anticipation of the commencement of Federation Walk.

We put the view strongly that the existing pathway through Phillip Park is perfectly suitable in location, albeit requiring improvement. It could, with far less resources and environmental damage, be beautified to meet the ocean pathway requirements as to traffic and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). There is no basis to suggest that a natural forested view to either side of the pathway is any less attractive; indeed both variety and shade, and the transition to the natural feel of Federation Walk are better addressed by the investment of resources within the existing pathway footprint.

We must also point out that shade and trees are both attractive and necessary to reduce sun exposure of those using the path and to combat rising temperatures associated with global warming. More Gold Coasters are affected each day by skin cancer than have ever had their safety threatened on this - or any- area of The Spit. In fact and as the Police will confirm to you, The Spit is a low risk area for crime on the Gold Coast and the risk is far greater amidst the concrete of Cavill Avenue.

2. We note that the Draft Plan offers nothing to redress the current appearance or amenity of Phillip Park north of the Sheraton. We think this a serious deficiency if indeed the purpose of this continuation is to service our increasing population and that which may or may not occur due to possible development of certain parts of the western side of The Spit. Nor does the plan offer lighting which is acknowledged in promoting CPTED, whereas the existing pathway is already lit, albeit a maintenance upgrade would be required.

We would also point to the fact that over 30 kms of concrete pathway exist south of the Sheraton (with minor breaks, notably in the Narrowneck area), such that extensive access to the ocean is readily available already, without the destruction of coastal trees important both to the character of the area and to the maintenance of the dunal environment against erosion and weeds. Numerous access points to the beach already exist at the Sheraton (3) and at the Federation Walk carpark (2).

3. the proposal to build a concrete pathway north of The Sheraton is unnecessary and detrimental to the natural character of the area. Wheelchair access is not impeded by hard crushed rock pathways along existing tracks, which will minimise environmental impacts and enhance the natural experience. We would point to National Parks, walkways in places like Noosa and elsewhere where recourse to concrete is avoided without any loss of amenity or usage. In addition, such pathways entail far lower physical impact or stress upon both runners and walkers than that afforded by concrete.

We must also raise the caution that any continuity of the concrete to Federation Walk will inevitably encourage proposals to continue the concrete to the northern end of The Spit. Such proposals would impact adversely upon Federation Walk and The Spit, regardless of current Council intentions.

4. We note comments such as alleged "inappropriate uses of the area" north of The Sheraton and the concept that CPTED will overcome this. We put the view that any inappropriate uses of the area whether by homeless persons or others, are matters to be dealt with by the Police. As is obvious, many people regularly use the area and have no complaint with respect to these alleged issues.

Again, we point out that local Police confirm that crime levels on The Spit are extremely low.

5. The proposition was also put that there will be increasing user demands placed upon the area arising from the development of the western Spit. As we all know, the nature and character of any such development is and will remain unknown for some time. We therefore think that if this issue is to be a consideration, it does not justify the destruction of trees along the beach. Quite the opposite in fact, it should encourage the retention of existing trees and further planting, as a contrasting natural shaded area and as a windbreak to the developed western side of The Spit.

The approach taken to the park area should be to improve what currently exists pending the outcome of the State Government development processes.

We would also point out that development of the western side is supposed to support and protect the north and eastern side as a natural parklands for the community; therefore funding of anything to the east ought flow or at least be assisted by funds obtained from the leasing out and development of the western areas south of SeaWorld. This should include maintenance of natural pathways. We must point out that even if crushed rock/ gravel requires greater maintenance than concrete, the cost would be worth bearing to preserve a unique and different natural environment as is found in this area. In addition, such paths would be cheaper to create initially and far easier to reinstate in the event of severe weather conditions.

We would refer you to other high use tourist and community locations which have selected crushed rock for reasons of preserving the natural feel: for example, Healesville Sanctuary and many parts of the famous Sth Yarra 'Tan running track in Melbourne, and much of Noosa national park.

* * *

For these reasons, we put the view that the decision to be made here is one which ought hinge upon the intended character of the area and those immediately adjacent to it; that is, the area is a potential special environment for parks and passive usage, with a winding pathway - nestled in a wind-protected parkland on the leeward side of the dunes, which is quite different and distinct to everything which has been constructed south of it.

This green treed environment then moves into the natural dunal coastal walk that is Federation Walk; in other words it is a green and treed transition to the natural coastal wilderness of the Walk.

We therefore request that the Draft Plan be redesigned so that:

- the pathway runs along the existing path through Phillip Park (connecting with those coming from the west) through the parklands areas until ceasing at Federation Walk;- it incorporates the proper planting, restoration and maintenance of the natural vegetation; - the existing lighting should be restored (at least during certain hours) to meet the CPTEP objective; and- the pathway ought be in a crushed rock hard form, rather than a 3 or 6 metre wide concrete path.

We are available to discuss any of these matters further at your convenience.